LDS Women: 58% Admit Premarital Sex

[falafel]

I think you're talking to the SL Trib rather than me, but just in case -- the SL Trib posted it today. I assume articles that old aren't available online (for free anyway), so I enjoy these blasts from the past.

I mis-read your original message then. I thought that you had culled this 20 year old article from the Trib's archives and then posted it.

Still, why would the Trib post this now? Are they only now getting around to what Sunstone's been saying for 20 years?

[creekster]

I think you're talking to the SL Trib rather than me, but just in case -- the SL Trib posted it today. I assume articles that old aren't available online (for free anyway), so I enjoy these blasts from the past.

Don't be so coy Scottie. The article was published on the web site, apparently, today. But going to your link doesn't tell me why they published it today or even what pertinence it might have, if any, today. Moreover, assuming you don't see yourself as some sort of CUF newsbot, I would like to know why YOU chose to post this today. What is it you think is important about this article?

Quite frankly, that a significant percentage of people who associate with the LDS church have pre-marital sex is not too earthshaking, at least to me. So what's YOUR point?

[scottie]

Don't be so coy Scottie. The article was published on the web site, apparently, today. But going to your link doesn't tell me why they published it today or even what pertinence it might have, if any, today. Moreover, assuming you don't see yourself as some sort of CUF newsbot, I would like to know why YOU chose to post this today. What is it you think is important about this article?

Quite frankly, that a significant percentage of people who associate with the LDS church have pre-marital sex is not too earthshaking, at least to me. So what's YOUR point?

I have no idea why they chose to publish it today or what pertinence it has. I found the stats interesting, and I'm not here to tell you or anyone what is interesting. I suggest you put me on ignore.

[creekster]

I have no idea why they chose to publish it today or what pertinence it has. I found the stats interesting, and I'm not here to tell you or anyone what is interesting. I suggest you put me on ignore.

So you DO see yourself as a sort of newsbot. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but you shouldnt be so touchy if I or someone else asks you about your posting style. I look forward to the time someone publishes something even tangentially positive about the churhc so that you can link it for us.

I don't ignore anyone, btw. At least not in a technological sense.

[scottie]

So you DO see yourself as a sort of newsbot. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but you shouldnt be so touchy if I or someone else asks you about your posting style. I look forward to the time someone publishes something even tangentially positive about the churhc so that you can link it for us.

I don't ignore anyone, btw. At least not in a technological sense.

I guess my question for you then is -- what did you hope to glean by asking me about my posting style? Is there something wrong with my style that you would need to call it out? Right back at you about being "touchy" -- don't assume that every and anything I post about the church is negative; case in point, how is the article I posted above negative about the church? Obviously the Mormon church isn't immune to premarital sex, but maybe 58% surprises some? Were you thinking I was posting the 58% as a neener-neener at the Mormon church or something?

[DU Ute]

I guess my question for you then is -- what did you hope to glean by asking me about my posting style? Is there something wrong with my style that you would need to call it out? Right back at you about being "touchy" -- don't assume that every and anything I post about the church is negative; case in point, how is the article I posted above negative about the church? Obviously the Mormon church isn't immune to premarital sex, but maybe 58% surprises some? Were you thinking I was posting the 58% as a neener-neener at the Mormon church or something?

I don't know how anyone could think such a thing.

I wonder what the survey defined as premarital sex, or if it was defined at all.

[creekster]

I guess my question for you then is -- what did you hope to glean by asking me about my posting style? Is there something wrong with my style that you would need to call it out? Right back at you about being "touchy" -- don't assume that every and anything I post about the church is negative; case in point, how is the article I posted above negative about the church? Obviously the Mormon church isn't immune to premarital sex, but maybe 58% surprises some? Were you thinking I was posting the 58% as a neener-neener at the Mormon church or something?

That's is exactly my question; why did you post it? We can all read the paper. I would prefer to hear what YOU think. You assume I am calling you out? What does that even mean here? Go back and read my questions; if you think that is being 'called out' then I think you are a little overly sensitive (or maybe you even feel guilty?). I would think that SU's favorite poster's self-confidence would be a little more robust.

Here's the thing: I know you have an agenda, we all do. I would like to know what yours is. It's clear you are focused on LDS issues. You link many articles. Which ones do you think were positive? I don't recall any but I am certainly not a 'student' of your or anyone else's posts. So you think the 58%figure is a positive thing? Or is it a negative thing? Or is it a waste of space and who really cares thing? What is the point in your mind? You said you aren't here to tell anyone else what to think and that is certainly true. Lord knows the egos around here wouldn't allow it. But I, for one, am much more interested in hearing what YOU think that I am in having just a news service.

That being said, and to be fair, you have started some very interesting threads and while I might not go as far as SU in praising your approach, I do appreciate your contributions. Even so, I would appreciate hearing more from you.

[jay santos]

The reason this bothers LDS so much is that we the assumption that superior sexual morality should be a characteristic of God's true followers. I don't buy this assumption. I don't think it's a Bible doctrine.

What separates God's followers is a profession of belief in God and repenting for sins.

[creekster]

The reason this bothers LDS so much is that we the assumption that superior sexual morality should be a characteristic of God's true followers. I don't buy this assumption. I don't think it's a Bible doctrine.

What separates God's followers is a profession of belief in God and repenting for sins.

who, exactly, is claiming they are bothered here?

[jay santos]

who, exactly, is claiming they are bothered here?

1. You pretending that no Mormons would be bothered by this is one evidence.

2. There was a post on CB about this where many seemed to be upset. Was it deleted or am I not able to find it again?

3. Some here are doing everything possible to dismiss the statistics or look for ways to explain it away.

4. I haven't read the comments at the Trib site, but I bet you dollars to donuts, a lot of active LDS are up in arms over the article.

5. I live and work in a community that is 95% LDS. I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on LDS culture, and I promise people would be upset by a study like this.

6. I've heard references to this same study before. The rumor I heard was that the brethren were very concerned about this study and attributed it to a heavy focus on missionary prep for YM without a similar focus for YW and that is the time they started putting major focus on YW Excellence program.

[scottie]

That's is exactly my question; why did you post it? We can all read the paper. I would prefer to hear what YOU think. You assume I am calling you out? What does that even mean here? Go back and read my questions; if you think that is being 'called out' then I think you are a little overly sensitive (or maybe you even feel guilty?). I would think that SU's favorite poster's self-confidence would be a little more robust.

Here's the thing: I know you have an agenda, we all do. I would like to know what yours is. It's clear you are focused on LDS issues. You link many articles. Which ones do you think were positive? I don't recall any but I am certainly not a 'student' of your or anyone else's posts. So you think the 58%figure is a positive thing? Or is it a negative thing? Or is it a waste of space and who really cares thing? What is the point in your mind? You said you aren't here to tell anyone else what to think and that is certainly true. Lord knows the egos around here wouldn't allow it. But I, for one, am much more interested in hearing what YOU think that I am in having just a news service.

That being said, and to be fair, you have started some very interesting threads and while I might not go as far as SU in praising your approach, I do appreciate your contributions. Even so, I would appreciate hearing more from you.

I appreciate you wanting to know what I think, and when I have strong opinions on what I'm posting, I will add more thought. By "calling out" I mean you're getting after me for only being a newsbot (no?), but I see nothing wrong with being a newsbot as long the articles are interesting to me.

[byu71]

I wonder what the survey defined as premarital sex, or if it was defined at all.

Now that is a good question. Knowing our culture where many define the SI swimsuit edition as porn, it wouldn't surprise me if many young ladies in the church thought premarital sex included masturbation and French Kissing.

Oh, it does. Nevermind.

[Goatnapper'96]

who, exactly, is claiming they are bothered here?

Dammit, I am! I went to my consummation nite knowing very little about the horizontal rumba, and by golly statistically speaking I could have been a virtual Don Juan and made all the high school graduation requirements of SVHS 1990 quite happy without any negative reprucussions to my standing in the Mormon Church. Despite this fact, my egotistical youth leaders had spent hours upon hours forcing me in front of bright lights, waterboarded me and filled my ecclesiastical hours with torture and brainwashing me into thinking touching a woman's breast was evil and that if I changed my own oil, I would develop hairy palms and the word would get out.

Yet it was all just to control my mind. I coulda nailed half my class, and there were over 800 in my graduating class so there was a virtual cornicopia of easy uhh uhhhh uhhh ladies. Not to mention all the sluts just over the hill in the Conejo Valley!

Ya I am pissed. Once again my life was ruined by the mormon church! Further building upon the arguments of my liberal friends, you all are persecuted due to my persecution because you are forced to read my mindless blather about fake knockers!

Indeed, had I just been able to tap it a few times and put myself in the majority all would have been well.......

[RobinFinderson]

who, exactly, is claiming they are bothered here?

Oh brother! Do you think anyone is buying that?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Now that is a good question. Knowing our culture where many define the SI swimsuit edition as porn, it wouldn't surprise me if many young ladies in the church thought premarital sex included masturbation and French Kissing.
Oh, it does. Nevermind.

The survey was done 20 years ago and who knows what many of the women being surveyed thought. Then again, the survey could be done today and many girls/women could have the same ideas.

This whole thread also made me think of the episode of the office where Andy is making the assumption that is fiance, Angela, is a virgin. Doubtless there have been quite a few mormon guys get married with the same assumption and they don't know any better even after marriage given their own lack of experience.